"Why
does Justin Raimondo spend an entire column running on about how 'the Rockefellers'
 the Rockefellers!  are behind what he calls 'a furious post-9/11
anti-Saudi propaganda campaign that has gone into overdrive in recent weeks?'
When right wingers start with the Rockefeller talk, everyone else heads for
the exits. At best it's irrelevant. I neither know nor care whether 'the Rockefellers'
want to bring down the House of Saud and replace it with someone more congenial."

While
not rejecting the possibility out of hand, Henley avers that

"It's
either wrongheaded and wrong for the US to go to war to topple the present
Royal Family or it isn't, regardless of who pays off whom."

BECAUSE
IT MATTERS

I'll
tell you why I spend an entire column "running on" about this topic,
Jim: because, contrary to what you seem to believe, it matters a whole lot
when very rich and politically powerful people try to get the US government
to do their bidding. For example, as Murray
Rothbard, Gabriel
Kolko, and others have shown, the "progressive era" reforms
of the nineteenth century were initiated and supported by large corporations
for the purpose of keeping out competition. In short, the various corporate
clans  Rockefeller, Morgan, etc., including both the
"Yankees" and the "Cowboys" of the American business
community  have not exactly been shy in using State power to achieve
their ends, both at home and abroad.

"The
Panama Canal Company's lobbyist, Morgan-connected New York attorney William
Nelson Cromwell, literally sat in the White House directing the 'revolution'
and organizing the final settlement. We now know that, in 1900, the shares
of the old French Panama Canal Company were purchased by an American financial
syndicate, headed by J. P. Morgan & Co., and put together by Morgan's
top attorney, Francis Lynde Stetson. The syndicate also included members of
the Rockefeller, Seligman, and Kuhn, Loeb financial groups…"

Selling
these shares, after the US-engineered "revolution," at double the
price as the Panama Canal project was revived, made a number of very well-connected
people  including Teddy Roosevelt's brother-in-law  quite rich.
Were the corporate connections of the Panamanian "revolutionaries"
irrelevant to the course of events in 1903? No more so than the machinations
of US oil companies in the Middle East today  in other words, the corporate
connection is highly relevant.

THE
CORPORATE CONNECTION

Indeed,
in the context of the history of our involvement in the Middle East, practically
nothing else is at all relevant. For why else are US troops in Saudi
Arabia? There is, after all, no oil shortage: far from it, the world is swimming
in the stuff, which is one reason why the Saudis are in a bit of financial
trouble. So it isn't access to oil, per se, that our American centurions
are guarding, but the access of certain American corporate entities to Saudi
oil profits, to which they have become rather accustomed over the years.

HEADING
FOR THE DOORS?

"When
right wingers start with the Rockefeller talk," smirks Henley, "everyone
else heads for the exits." Not quite everyone: a lot of leftists and
plain old populists are prone to prick up their ears at this kind of talk.
Yet this merely points to the utter uselessness of conventional "left-right"
distinctions: one doesn't have to be a Marxist to understand how and why corporate
power is often rooted in government power. Surely libertarians, who see government
as the sole source of monopolistic privilege, should be the first to see the
corporate connection to policymaking.

Unlike
the Left, however, libertarians see that the problem is not the nature of
capitalism but of government. Instead of nationalizing industries in
the name of "the people" (i.e. certain people), libertarians
call for the complete separation of economy and state. The whole ostensibly
"leftist" analysis of the "war on terrorism"  that
this is a "war for oil"  actually confirms the libertarian
insight into the role of the State in world affairs. But the Left cannot explain
the subtleties of that policy, blinded as it is by its cultural and political
prejudices: they are clueless when it comes to the reasons for the US-Saudi
rift. And so, I might add, are most conservatives, even those with libertarian
sympathies.

THOSE
IDLE PRINCES OF ARABY

Henley
goes on to cite a correspondent who points out that Aramco, the company originally
granted a monopoly franchise on oil production by the Saudi monarchy, is state-owned,
and is now known as Saudi Aramco:

"Which
is to say, [owned by] lots of little princes. Abdullah announces in 1998 that
he wants to open it up to competition, which is to say, make things rough
for hundreds of trust fund babies in the kingdom. Someone might have to earn
a living! Might some of those princes decide to play footsie with, oh, al
Qaeda?"

To
begin with, as I pointed
out in my original column on this subject, the phony "nationalization"
of the 1970s left the Rockefeller-controlled Aramco consortium as the "managers"
of the operation, and these companies still received the lion's share of Saudi
oil. Their monopoly on production, refining, and marketing was unbroken 
until very recently, when Crown Prince Abdullah announced that it was high
time the Saudi kingdom liberalized its economic policies.

WINNERS
AND LOSERS

Secondly,
Henley simply gets it wrong when he sees the Saudis, and not Western oil interests,
as the losers in this liberalization process. The evolution of the state franchise
system, embodied in Aramco, shows the direction of the US-Saudi relationship,
with the latter pulling away from the former since the 1970s. As
Richard Cowen of the University of California, at Davis, puts it:

"In
all of the upheavals, the overriding concern of the majors was clearly to
retain control over crude oil shipping, refining, and marketing. This was
shown in 1974, when Saudi Arabia demanded the nationalization of Aramco. If
there were problems, the Saudis threatened, they would simply offer 3 million
barrels a day directly to third parties (outside the majors). In the end,
Aramco quietly gave in, in return for contracts by which it would handle all
the shipping of Saudi crude."

STEPPING
OUT

But
the Saudis began
to step out on their own in 1988, going into the production, refining,
and marketing business for themselves, in alliance with Texaco  the
biggest of the Texan
"wildcatters" and the only major independent factor in the
original Aramco consortium, granted a mere 30 percent of ownership shares
compared to 70 percent for the Rockefellers and their corporate cohorts. This
operation has grown into the sixth largest oil and gas retailer in the US,
directly threatening the majors. A Saudi collision with Big Oil was inevitable,
from that point on, and the breaking point came with Prince Abdullah's shocking
announcement that the downstream aspects of the oil industry  long dominated
by the majors  would now be opened up to the international competition.

"Recall
if you will the spring of 1973, when many of the OPEC governments secured
25 percent participation and announced that they would develop their own marketing
capabilities as rapidly as possible, while President Nixon suspended quantitative
controls on imports. Remember the large number of glorious plans for new independent
refineries which were announced  and try to remember what happened to
all but one or two of these plans.

"What
happened as the months passed, of course, is that after the first flush of
enthusiasm over participation, the host governments came to the conclusion
that the major integrated companies offered the best opportunity for marketing
their oil in a manner which would avoid a break in OPEC prices. The door to
independents appeared to close in Saudi Arabia, for example, last September
when the Saudis announced they would not enter any new contracts with private
refiners. … [I]t was agreed that after nationalization of production the state
company, Petromin, would retain only 5 percent of the nation's crude output
to maintain the contracts it entered into in 1973 and 1974; 95 percent of
the output would continue to be marketed by Exxon, Texaco, Socal, and Mobil."

"In
1972, just before the Arab oil embargo sent prices through the ceiling, state-owned
oil companies accounted for just 6 percent of worldwide crude production,
whereas companies like Exxon and Mobil were the dominant players (Exxon and
Mobil together accounted for almost one-sixth of the global market share).
In the changing oil landscape, these domineering companies of yesteryear today
find themselves marginalized by the state-owned companies. Today, state-owned
companies such as Saudi Aramco, Mexico's Pemex and Venezuela's Petroleos de
Venezuela account for almost 52 percent of global production, compared to
this Exxon and Mobile, pre-merger, accounted for merely 2 percent and 1 percent
respectively."

Screwed
out of their formerly privileged position, the major American oil companies
(otherwise known as "the Rockefellers") have been maneuvering to
reestablish their commercial hegemony. One such maneuver was to cut the Saudis
off at the pass: a
merger between one of the majors, Chevron, and Texaco, Saudi Aramco's
ally. After
a long series of negotiations and behind-the-scenes political machinations,
the merger was finally given the green light by the Federal Trade Commission
 on September
7, 2001.

"Under
the terms of the proposed order, the combined Chevron/Texaco would be required
to divest all of Texaco's interests in two joint ventures, Equilon Enterprises,
LLC (Equilon), which is currently owned by Texaco and Shell Oil Company (Shell),
and Motiva Enterprises, LLC (Motiva), which is currently owned by Shell, Texaco,
and Saudi Refining, Inc. (SRI). Outside 'the Alliance' defined by these two
joint ventures, Texaco would be required to divest assets including its one-third
interest in the Discovery natural gas pipeline system in the Gulf of Mexico..."

And
so the door was still open to the independents, and to foreign competitors
like Saudi Aramco: the means to reach oil and gas consumers directly was still
within the grasp of the Saudis. Four days later, "everything changed…."

CUI
BONO?

The
major US oil companies had won a Pyrrhic
victory in the FTC decision. Given their history of political manipulation
and influence-buying, why would they hesitate to use the armed forces of the
United States to win back what had been lost? Contra Henley, who pays off
whom is totally relevant to the question of whether we ought to go
to war, or make some other policy move that is supposed to embody the "national
interest." For any libertarian worth his salt is moved to ask "Whose
interests are being served?" Cui bono? Who benefits? In understanding
political events, the answer to this question, if it doesn't tell the whole
story, at least leads us in the right direction.

Henley
continues:

"Going
down the Rockefeller path causes Raimondo to make some very dubious claims:
'Speaking through Jeff Jacoby  in an act of ventriloquism that no doubt
had the dummy-columnist's full cooperation  the Aramco-Rockefeller consortium
delivered this "ultimatum" to their former business partners…'

"There
is a factual claim here, a serious one, and it comes without evidence. The
claim is that Jacoby is not just a neo-imperialist crank but an agent of a
particular corporate interest. Unless Raimondo has evidence of Jacoby being
rented, Krugmanlike, for the duration of an article, it's not just bogus,
but scurrilous."

In
calling for the US military conquest of the Saudi oil fields, Jacoby is perhaps
getting a little ahead of his corporate mentors, but his bald statement amounts,
in reality, to a call for handing those oil fields back to the US oil majors.
This is not a "factual claim" but a simple fact. If this
is "scurrilous," then so be it. It also happens to be true. You
don't need canceled check stubs to show that someone is serving, in effect,
as an agent of certain interests. The requirement that a pundit be "rented,
Krugmanlike," before we can detect his allegiances would rule out of
order Orwell's famous excoriation of pacifists during World War II, which
has proved such an inspiration to Andrew Sullivan and other pro-war "bloggers."
He said that they were "objectively" aiding Hitler in his quest
to conquer Britain, and regardless of the merits of that particular case,
surely there is merit to the general idea that it is possible to serve certain
political or even financial interests without being put on the payroll.

A
QUESTION OF TIMING

Henley
cites my reporting on a vital meeting that took place on September 23, 1998,
when Prince Abdullah, on a visit to the US, told a bunch of shocked oil company
executives that he was opening up Saudi markets to free competition. Oh, but
this is "lax timing," he says, why the time gap between the meeting
and the start of the anti-Wahabi campaign?

"Every
supposedly baleful, Rockefeller-inspired maneuver Raimondo cites, from Martha
McSally to Andrew Sullivan's 'sudden' outrage over Saudi persecution of gays
to the general outbreak of anti-Wahabism among pundits, happened three years
after Raimondo's Big Meeting. If that's 'tandem' it's tandem like a Dr. Seuss
bicycle that extends across several pages from front seat to back seat."

TIME
AND OPPORTUNITY

In
the context of the US-Saudi strategic relationship  one of the longest
and most closely-guarded alliances of the postwar period  1998 wasn't
that long ago. Unlike the latest development in the Paul Krugman scandal or
the Doris Kearns Goodwin/Stephen Ambrose plagiarism brouhaha, the evolution
of US-Saudi relations hardly ever changes radically from day to day 
except, perhaps, from 9/10 to 9/11, as Henley himself points out. While Prince
Abdullah served notice on Big Oil in 1998, it took time  and opportunity
 for the oil majors to mount an effective counterattack. Before 9/11,
if Daniel Pipes, Stephen Schwartz and the editors of National Review
had ranted and raved about the alleged "totalitarian" threat from
Wahabism, people would simply have looked at them funny. Post 9/11, however,
this nutty idea has some demagogic resonance, and why shouldn't we
expect those who stand to benefit to make the most of it?

IT'S
ALL IN THE DETAILS

Henley
goes on to note that the hijackers were all Saudis and that they pulled off
the 9/11 attacks "at the behest of a rich Saudi guy"  leaving
out, as the anti-Saudi crowd always does, that this "guy" is the
head of an organization which has  like
Jeff Jacoby  vowed to overthrow the Saudi monarchy.

WHERE
DO I APPLY?

In
disputing my analysis of how state capitalism in the US works, Henley asks:

"Surely
the outsiders could buy their own pundits and government officials, couldn't
they? Why do only The Rockefellers do that?"

The
Rockefellers and their allies made their bundle  a very big bundle 
before the income tax and the wave of egalitarianism in public life made the
accumulation of such a fortune practically impossible. They and a few others
had a head start, so to speak, and this has been a great advantage to them.
The "outsiders," by definition, have less resources, and less influence.
As to whether they are buying their own pundits outright, or at least keeping
accounts of who's been naughty and who's been nice, is not for me to say.
I can say, however, that this pundit is for sale to the right
(not the highest) bidder, and if Mr. Henley knows where I can send my application
for the job, I would be more than happy to do so.

GLENN
REYNOLDS, INSUFFERABLE SNOB

Speaking
of buying people off, the bloggers, led by their Lider Maximo, Andrew
"The Enforcer" Sullivan, have been all atwitter lately about
the Paul Krugman scandal: it appears Krugman took $50,000 from the now bankrupt
Enron to serve on some "advisory board" or other. Bill Kristol,
apparently, took $100,000 (but, somehow, this is deemed less important). InstaPundit
is filled with this blither, the general idea being to divert attention away
from any possible connection between Enron and the Bush administration. It's
all very tiresome, and partisan, the kind of "gotcha" journalism
that easily descends into bitchiness. Indeed, the bitchy tone of Sullivan's
blogging seems to have infected his fellow "war-bloggers," especially
evident in the non-response to my column on the blogger phenomenon and Tim
Cavanaugh's devastating mockery of blogger pretensions. Here, for
instance, is the
snot-nosed little Glenn Reynolds, sneeringly asking:

"WHY
DO THEY HATE US? I suspect that Tim Cavanaugh's lame assault on bloggers,
mentioned below, is just the first of a wave. The interesting thing is, the
top-rank journalists like Michael Barone, Walter Shapiro, Howard Kurtz, Charles
Oliver, James Taranto, etc., etc., seem to like the blogger phenomenon. (Not
to mention the ones who are bloggers themselves, of course). It's the folks
several rungs down, like Cavanaugh or Justin Raimondo, who seem to have the
most trouble.

"But
then, that's really no surprise. Imagine yourself in the position of a lower-tier
writer: sucking up to editors, letting them rip up your writing, trying to
fit in with their politics, grimly hanging on in the hopes that, some day,
a bigshot will quote your stuff in a major national publication and you'll
get the chance to move up.

"Now
the bloggers appear. They write what they think. No sucking up to editors.
No ass-kissing. No grim hanging-on  hell, these people are actually,
and obviously, having the time of their lives. And to add injury to insult,
they're being noticed by the bigshots while you continue to toil in obscurity.
"

Oh
yes, Glenn, you're soooo right: why, I'm positively sleepless at night
thinking that I would really much rather be a well-paid warmonger like
Candy Andy Sullivan, posing for Gap ads and swooning over President Karzai's
new wardrobe. And, oh gee, I think I'll have an orgasm if Sullivan 
or some other puffed-up self-important "big boy"  deigns to
mention me. Maybe I'll even "get the chance to move up"  up
to the pages of The New Republic and National Review, where
I can add my voice to the "amen!" chorus as we barrel down the road
to World War III. Sheesh! Is this guy kidding? Unfortunately, it appears
not….

A
PREFERENCE FOR HELL

Reynolds'
argument boils down to "The elite looooves us, and only you 'lower
rung' types are making a stink"  and we are supposed to
be the ones who are into "sucking up"! Perhaps Instapundit
ought to change its background color from white to brown. But really, Glenn
old boy, your description of the bloggers fits me to a tee: no sucking up
to editors. No ass-kissing. Very far from grimly "hanging on," I'm
having the time of my life. And if being a "top rank journalist"
means having to be the talent-less James Taranto, whose excursions into wit
consist entirely of putting "Our Friends, the…" in front of the
targets of his latest smear, then no thanks, bud  I'll stick
with the "lower rungs," thank you. Indeed, I'd prefer the lowest
rung of Hell.

After
that embarrassing display of petulant snobbery, and whining all the while
that he didn't get "bupkus" for hits from being linked in my piece
 which had dozens of links  Reynolds has the gall to ask
Cavanaugh to "lighten up." Try it yourself, Glenn: who knows, perhaps
then your unhealthy obsession with status will subside and you'll lose your
own delusions of grandeur.

Please Support Antiwar.com

A contribution
of $25 or more gets you a copy of Justin Raimondo's Into the Bosnian Quagmire:
The Case Against U.S. Intervention in the Balkans, a 60-page booklet packed
with the kind of intellectual ammunition you need to fight the lies being put
out by this administration and its allies in Congress. And now, for a limited
time, donors of $50 or more receive a copy of Ronald Radosh's classic study
of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative
Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to